Friday, August 6, 2010

Nina Hartley Layeth The Smack (And The Damn Truth) Down On Antiporn-AntiSexWork Jabronae @ Desiree Alliance 2010 Keynote Speech

I always knew there was a reason people call Nina Hartley "The Goddess of Sex." After watching this speech, they should also call her something else: "Madam Freakin' President." (OK...without the "freakin'" part.)

Last week, Nina gave the keynote address at the annual Desiree Alliance Sex Worker Conference in Las Vegas; discussing everything from the struggle to make her voice heard as a sex worker/pro-porn advocate to a thorough analysis of the forces invieghed against her and her activist sex worker associates.

I could give an analysis of the speech...but since Nina has a way of rendering analysis moot by her own eloquence and passion, I figure that reposting the speech (and the ensuing Q & A) would be more than suitable enough.

The original speech was posted by sawbuckfilms via their YouTube channel yesterday; a sincere thanks to them for giving permesion to repost it here. I have also posted the speech over at my own SmackDog Chronicles blog, too.










Adult entertainment legend/progressive sex educator Nina Hartley giving the keynote address at last week's Sex Worker Conference sponsored by the Desiree Alliance in Las Vegas (via YouTube, h/t to sawbuckfilms)

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Pink Cross Foundation: Charitable Organization?? Or: Just Shelley Lubben's Personal Ponzi Scheme??

To say that former porn starlet turned fundamentalist Christian/antiporn activist/"'ex-slut" ministress Shelley Lubben (aka "Roxy") has been on a roll of late would be an understatement; she has gotten plenty of publicity recently through her ties with the mainstream of the antiporn movement.

Lubben was one of the keynote speakers recently in a political luncheon gabfest titled "Pornography Harms" last month, and she was also one of the main speakers at the CalOSHA hearings on imposing mandatory condom requirements on the industry as a result of the "outbreak" last year. She even got some primetime publicity via an interview she did with ABC News for their Nightline news program.

Lately, though, she has had to deal with publicity that isn't quite so glowing...and may even spell real trouble for her and her "movement".

A number of active porn performers have come forth to directly question Lubben's motives in "helping women get out of the porn industry", and to counter some of her more bombastic claims about how women in porn are simply abused and "prostituted".

Monica Foster, for one, has experience in mentoring performers into and out of the industry through her GettingIntoPorn.com and GettingOutOfPorn.com websites; and she has recently been very critical of the fundamentalist Christian focus of Lubben and her PCF "ministry", as well as the lack of actual resources given to ex-performers seeking her help.  Some quotage from Foster, courtesy of her blog:

[...]
I used to admire this woman for her supposed attempts to help people, but after doing a bit of research on her, watching her interviews, and having heard about some of the realities of her organization from a few trusted friends, I'm not so certain that even she is clear as to what her true agenda is.

I think as of current that she is very self centered, immature, emotionally stunted, manipulative and on a quest of fame at the expense of hurting others and their livelihoods.

What I don't like about Lubben most of all, is that she blames everyone and everything else in life for circumstances she found herself in within life, except for herself. She seems to see the world as black and white rather than billions of shades of gray and colors.

We all have free will and we all make CHOICES in life. She CHOSE to work as a prostitute and a porn actress. No one held a gun to her head. Her career choice didn't work out for her and she chose to leave the industry completely, however that was her choice - and for her to demonize EVERYONE and EVERYTHING associated with it now is just plain wrong.
But even that is dwarfed by the campaign of another porn performer, Julie Meadows (aka Lydia Lee), whom has virturally launched a one-woman crusade to publically expose Lubben and the Pink Cross Foundation for the frauds they allegedly are. Meadows has been using both her own blog and her space on Mike South's blog to openly question both the motives and the actions of the PCF, and recently she has focused on their tax exempt status as charitable contributions.

Using the tax returns that were filed by the PCF in 2008 and 2009 -- returns that are public record and accessible to anyone thanks to disclosure regulations -- Julie and her husband Doug found countless questionable innaccuracies, inconsistencies, and questionable data that could possibly lead to genuine inquiries about the PCF's tax exempt status, let alone about whether or not they are living up to their professed goal of "helping adult performers get out of the pornography industry", or just exploiting ex-performers that much worse in order to line her pockets.

To that end, Doug and Julie created a video in which Doug documents in detail the inconsistencies and questions raised by the "tax documents", and openly wonders whether or not they are mere ruses designed to fend off more detailed auditing of their financial affairs. The video was originally posted to Julie's home blog, then to her YouTube account home page (JulieMeadowsEnt) in four parts; it is also now available over at my own personal SmackDog Chronicles blog.

I highly reccommend you watch the video (or the series) in its entirity; it is, to say the least, quite illuminating.




:

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

"Our Porn, Our Selves": The Beginning Of The Pro-Porn Pushback To "Stop Porn Culture"...Or Is It??

Much has been written here about the group Stop Porn Culture, and its efforts to use radical feminism as a base for its long-standing critique of porn as the ultimate danger to women.

Much has also been written here that there has been not much resistance from many progressives and sex-positive people to SPC's rhetoric.

It seems that those times are a'changing real quick.

After SPC announced that they were having their second Feminist Anti-Pornography Conference in middle July at Wheelock College (home of Gail Dines, chief propagandist for the antiporn feminist "Left"), some feminists and pro-porn women decided that enough was too much, and that there needed to be a swift response in defense of women's right to sexual media.

And one of them, sex blogger Violet Blue of Tiny Nibbles/Open Source Sex fame, decided to put talk to action. First, she decided to form a Facebook page dedicated to debunking the depth of antiporn rhetoric that SPC was shilling; and now she has created a blog to the same goals and objectives.

Both are titled "Our Porn, Our Selves", and dedicated to the legendary feminist anthem "Our Bodies, Our Selves", which served as the manifesto for women's reproductive and sexual autonomy during the 70's.

The "Our Porn, Ourselves" manifesto makes their case pretty explicit:

WE who declare that organizations such as Feminists Against Pornography do not speak for us.

WE who want the world to know that organizations such as Feminists Against Pornography do not represent feminists as a group.

WE who believe that every woman has the right and power to enjoy her sexuality as she decides.

WE who believe that to tell a woman how she may or may not enjoy her sexuality in any way is to deny that woman of her rights over her sexuality.

WE who state that any woman who attempts to control the way another woman enjoys, explores or expresses her sexuality is in fact creating a world that is harmful for all women.

WE who state that we are women, and we like pornography.

WE who state that as women, we are not harmed or threatened by the creation or viewing of pornography, and we wholly support the rights of any gender to view, create and enjoy pornography without judgment.

WE who want a world in which pornography is simply a sex toy enjoyed by all genders and sexual orientations, where women and men view porn within their own self-defined healthy sexuality, without being considered sick, twisted, wrong or mentally ill, and that men who enjoy pornography are no more likely to beat their wives, rape women or become peadophiles than anyone else in society.

WE hereby declare ourselves as adult women capable of making our own choices about our bodies and enjoyment of explicit visual stimulation for our sexual health and well-being.

WE hereby demand that our voices be heard.
The Facebook page has already in two days of existence gained over 500 followers, mostly women who are either unabashed consumers and producers of "feminist-" and "women-centered" porn or supporters of "alt[dot]porn" as well as their male allies and counterparts.

It would seem to be the breakthrough that everyone who is a sexual progressive would be cheering wildly.

So..why should there be any questions??  Why doesn't this blog, dedicated as it is to pro-porn activism (hey, it's in our freakin' TITLE!!!) not fall in head first toward Violet the Sex Blogger's crusade of resistance to the likes of Gail Dines??

Why??  Well, we can support them and cheer them on....but only from a slight distance. Here are our reasons why.

1) Violet Blue has, shall we say, a checkered history with what we call "the porn industry"...she supports wildly performers (Madison Young, Sasha Grey, Dana deArmond) who promote her own personal "sex positive" philosophy...but her attitudes towards more mainstream porn and towards those not quite behoven to her "San Francisco" values tend to range from lukewarm to outright hostile....as her continuing battles with AVN have shown.

2) Most of the supporters and biggest boosters of Our Porn, Ourselves happen to be either promoters of the kind of rebel porn (of the "porn for women" or "feminist porn" or "alt[dot]porn" variety) that was created as a counter to the supposed misogyny of "mainstream porn". That is certainly their right, and creating an alternative is certainly far better than censoring the porn they dislike....but still, it does pose a question of whether they would be willing to actively defend porn that didn't meet their exact standards.

In other words, would Violet and Ms. Naughty (another proud sponsor of this experiment) be as willing to defend as loudly the rights of more mainstream performers like Vicky Vette or Lisa Ann or Bree Olsen to make exactly the kind of porn that might squick them out???  And let us not get into Bang Bus or Anabolic or even -- gasp -- the kind of porn that folks like Ernest Greene and Renegade Evolution would call their personal pleasure??

3) And then there is the bitter taste that many performers still have against Violet the Sex Blogger for her infamous actions against the former Violet Blue the Porn Starlet (now No Name Jane) , her public breakup with Nina Hartley over philosophical differences, the feeling among some that Violet the Sex Blogger is just a bit egotisical and aims to hog the spotlight for herself. Well, that, and the popular feeling among mainstream porn performers and fans that "sex-positive" porn advocates are still just a bit too elitist and not accepting of the majority desires of most men towards the more intense and explicit content.

Also....Violet the Sex Blogger has been known to be an advocate of pilfering porn via Torrents and file-sharing, which is a major no-no for both industry producers and webmistresses/webmasters trying to make a buck and survive.

Nevertheless, in spite of all that against the messenger, the main core of the message she gives is right on point, and despite our own slight misgivings, I wholeheartedly support any effort to debunk and counter the sexual fascism of Dines and Company. Therefore, for the moment at least, count this blog in as a strong ally of their efforts....with some gritting of teeth, maybe, but an ally nevertheless.

(Of course, I speak mostly for myself here...Ernest and Ren and others may differ a bit...they can speak out here if they wish.)

Monday, May 3, 2010

How Justin Long Confronted The "Third Rail" Of Interracial Porn Racism...And Survived

There are a great many issues confronting the adult sexual media industry (or, what we call "the pornography industry") these days.

The ease of piracy through free downloading via bit torrents and "tube sites" and filesharing sites like RapidShare....though there is beginning to be a pushback on that.

The overall economic recession that is cutting in on profits.

The availability of DIY porn via camshows and personal "at home" sites, where it seems anyone with a webcam, a digital camera, and some HTML or PHP knowledge can set up their own money making venture with ease.

The threat of governmental intervention at the first sign of moral panic.

But, of all those threats, none is more intrusive and more important and potentially more destructive than an old and festering sore that on occasion threatens to explode: the subject of racism and racial discrimination within the porn industry.

The quasilegal status of porn has created plenty of subgenres where people of color can make inroads and produce explicit hardcore material for their benefit...and on occasion, there has even been attempts to create interracial porn that expresses the best of communion between different races.

Unfortunately, there has also been a history of interracial porn bringing out the worst and rankest of stereotyping for all races involved.

This is especially true of the kind of interracial porn featuring Black men and White women, which is often reduced to the basest theme of "BIG BLACK N*GGA GANGSTA/PIMP WITH HUGE D*CK ASSAULTS PURE WHITE GIRL(S)!!! This "sub-subgenre", if you will, is mostly justified as playing to the fantasies and "taboos" of their targeted audiences of older White men who still hang on tightly to the worst KKK stereotypes of Black men as wild lustful animals seeking White women for their prey.

Now, it should be said up front that this is far from the only depiction of Black men in IR porn; there are far, far more progressive and humane content which actually protrays both the Black men and their White female suitors as free and equal human beings capable of feelings and genuine empathy and healthy consensual lusts.

Problem is, though, that the former one seems to be the one that makes the most money and sells the most product when it comes to that particular subgenre...and it has many aspiring Black male performers in a particular bind of either accepting the more rancid roles and getting paid (and also getting their hands and dicks on decent looking White performers who don't mind doing Black men with their oversized endowments); or not doing so and not getting the roles that may help pay their rent.

And then, there is also the perspective of the White female performer who may, for whatever reason, be very resistant to performing with Black men.  Either they can't handle the usual size of the dick, or they are persuaded to forgo IR sex until their brand names are more well established and they can gain more economic firepower, or in the most extreme case, they really are that bigoted against Black men. Or, maybe, they just aren't into Black men and just want to stay within their own comfort zone.
In any case, all this is enough to make a Black male performer holla, so to speak...but until now, no one has been moved to action.

Until now, that is.

----------------------

Justin Long is not a particularly esteemed name in IR porn; he doesn't have his own label like Lexington Steele or Mr. Marcus or Sean Michaels or Jack Napier; or the status and reputation or a Tyler Knight or Nat Turner. He is...or was...simply a mid-level performer who did the daily grind performing plenty of IR porn scenes for plenty of labels. Yet, last week, with his announcement that he would be discontinuing doing IR porn due to what he considered to be rampant racism and discrimination against Black men overall, he has effectively opened up a Pandora's box of controversy and strong feelings about the state of the porn industry in general.

In a long essay first released to porn venues across the Internet (including AINews.com [here] and LukeIsBack.com [here]), Long explains and justifies his decision. Some sample snippage:

[....] Today I have canceled what work I had in LA and informed my agents that effective immediately, I will no longer be doing any sort of IR porn. This decision was not easy. I am not racist as I have stated and obviously could not be with a White mother and family. I will suffer from this decision no doubt, but I feel the mental anguish will be less of a burden than the financial. I feel horrible thinking that this is the only way for people to know exactly how I feel, and more over the only way for me to yell out, if you will, ''what the fuck, this is bullshit!'' Some will say, ''Well, you are being racist yourself in this decision.''

I would have to agree. It is wrong for anyone to say they won't work with someone because of skin color or nationality, however, what is a Black star to do if he/she is fed up with the racial profiling he/she has to endure everyday in this industry? This is not just about getting between a contract star's legs. This is about, the fact that every solid thing that a black star is not allowed to earn in the adult industry can be led back to three simple things; Agents telling girls ''no interracial'' or convincing them not to do IR, big companies refusing to shoot a fair percentage of content involving Black talent, and girl being given the choice of whether or not they want to choose co-talent solely on the basis of skin color or nationality.

This whole situation saddens me to no end. I am pissed off that I served in the military to protect the freedoms of the same people that would discriminate. I am pissed off that I served in the military and this is what my country does for me, i.e.: nothing, and continues to allow discrimination in my work place. So, the normal way this goes down is a girls statement, ''I don't do IR I'm sorry, it's nothing personal''. How the fuck could it not be personal when a girl tells you that she will not work with you because of the color of your skin?

Even worse it's not the color of your skin, obviously, because these same girls work with European and Latin darker-skinned male stars that are not labeled Black. The same contract and non-contract stars that say they don't do IR are still working with non-White performers. To make it worse a percentage of them are getting fucked off screen by Black males, either talent or civilian. So what really does the term IR mean? It sure in the hell doesn't mean anyone not of that girl's nationality. For example, if an Asian girl doesn't do IR, it should mean she only works with Asian male stars, right? Well, that's not the case. It means she will work with anyone that is not labeled Black by the Adult Industry.


Long sheds special bitterness towards the many White female porn performers who refuse to do IR videos for whatever reason:

Is being Black a target? Is it the kiss of death in the industry. A couple of male performers I know are Black, but very light skinned, and seem to work with these girls on a regular basis as they have not been Labled Black. Non-IR girls have no issues shooting with them, so you would think maybe it's just the color of the skin. But then you get to darker European, Asian, and Latino male talent, all of a sudden brown skin has no bearing!

So, does ''it's not personal'' continue to fly as a real statement? Absolutely not. Girls and agents like to say that saving IR extends the life of a girl's career. I have very serious doubts about that and will use a star I have worked with many times as an example. This girl has shot IR from day one in the industry, as far as I am aware. Very early in her career I had shot with her more than any male in the industry -- White, Black or other. Now she is arguably the biggest contract star in the world. So tell me exactly how did IR extend or hurt her career.

The fact is that non-IR girls use Black male talent as stepping stones and that is morally bankrupt in thought and action. Girls are permitted to do IR and then not do IR, and then start to do it again when their bookings slows down. The sad part is that Black male talent are willing to shoot with these girls which basically is telling them it's ok to exhibit this morally lacking behavior, and it's alright to disrupt our income. Black males are telling these girls that we are ok with the scraps that they are throwing our way.

The fact is that every girl that refuses to do IR is saying (regardless if they speak the words) I'm doing what's best for me and I don't care what happens to you (Mr. Black male talent). Every girl that refuses or dips in and out of doing IR effects every Black male star's annual income.

If contract stars did IR, you're damn right I and others would have more scenes because we have directors that would kill to shoot those scenes. It is the same with all non-IR shooting females. Black males have no problem if the girls are selective in their choosing of who they shoot with and who the won't shoot with. That’s fine. But to just say ''sorry your Black?'' Hello! Wake the fuck up!'' it's offensive, and then to follow it up with ''it's nothing personal,'' that just makes us even more angry because there is no way to take it but personal. The girl will take 10 cocks in a day -- in the ass, pussy, and mouth and multiple cocks at a time -- as long as none of them are Black? Come on! We are Black, not stupid!


Naturally, when you are a young Black man who decides to make a stand, you get your share of critics, and most certainly Justin Long has plenty of them. Some commentators at the Lukeisback.com thread have all but called Long out for hypocrisy in calling out White performers for not wanting to do scenes with him, while simultaneously promoting IR movies which could be construed of promoting the very same racial stereotypes that he condemned. Others have accused him of being a "reverse racist" in condemning White female performers; while still others have accused him of grandstanding for personal promotion, citing that the industry is more about making a profit than anything else.

To be fair, Long has more than held his own against his critics, and has stuck to his principles regardless of the potential consequences to his career. For that, at least, he deserves justified credit and respect.

But....the issue of interracial porn stereotyping of people of color has been sort of a dormant issue not to be raised, lest ammo is given to the likes of Gail Dines and the antipornography feminists who are most likely to raise the racism card when attacking porn for its sins of aggression against women. At a time when porn is under a great deal of assault from so many different angles (state censorship, piracy, the mandatory condom mandate, the recession), it's not at all uncommon to surpress touchy issues that may further divide and fracture fragile alliances.  Nevertheless, the underlying issue of racial discrimination in porn is pretty damn important enough, and anything that even comes close to rationalizing bigotry and inequality simply cannot be left to the Robert Jensens and Gail Dineses of the world to resolve all to themselves by wiping adult entertainment off the map.

As noted in these pages before, there most certainly is a legitimate issue with racial stereotyping in porn, and if it also is proven that porn is underpaying Black performers (and not just Black male performers, either), it could not have come at a worser time for the industry. Flipping it off as simply the fault of pursuing the mighty dollar simply won't do any more; maybe it's high time we listened to people like Justin Long (and female performers like Monica Foster and Marie Luv) and tackled the issue of racial discrimination in the porn industry as head on as porn piracy or the Weinstein/Lubben/AHCF assault on AIM's testing regimen needs to be confronted.

Above all, those who produce and consume porn absolutely must broaden their minds and their demographics to the point that they aren't merely chasing after those who have the most bucks, but actively pursuing the ultimate objective of explicit erotic media: to get people off. Regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or personal preference. In the end, the color of the penis (or the vagina) shouldn't matter as much as the quality of the experience. Supporting those artists who wish to produce more humane, consensual, and more egalitarian porn that doesn't reduce Black people to Stephin Fechit or Pimp Daddy or Black Gangsta roles would be a nice start...you think??

Notice that I'm not calling for exclusively "politically correct" porn that only lives up to my particular values, with everything else being thrown to the depths of Hell; porn, like every other artistic medium, should be a reflection of the feelings and desires of their creators. and those desires are not or should not be reduced to political sloagans or utopias. But, it wouldn't be such a bad idea if the people who actually did the sexual labor actually had some bit of respect for each other and humankind in general, and didn't just create crappy shit just because it gets them the most bank, wouldn't it??

Either way, props to Justin Long for daring to touch that live wire, and surviving.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

[Also cross-posted over at The SmackDog Chronicles]

Saturday, May 1, 2010

It's been a long time....

Obviously, I have been away...I regret that in some ways, but I have, in many ways, had a great deal of other shit to handle...

But I see how things are going in the world, and with that, something I put up over at the GER blog which I think is oh so fitting....-Ren


Ozymandias: It doesn’t take a genius to see the world has problems.

The Comedian: No, but it takes a room full of morons to think they’re small enough for you to handle.

Fitting, I think, in oh so many ways.

It’s late, or rather early, for those of you who sleep like normal human beings. For me, it is late. And as of late, as I have been sitting back, watching, reading, seeing how things are progressing in the world part of me wants to stand up and scream “No, can’t you idiots see what you’re doing?” The other part, well, the other part of me wants to sit back, light a cigarette, smile that smug, grim smile of mine and say “Well, look, you got what you wanted, your biggest wishes and dreams came true! Now there is blood running in the gutters and you are standing knee deep in it so how does it feel to try that on for size? How does it feel to know you had a hand in that?”

At this point, you might be asking what my grim, insomnia rattled self is talking about. Well, I’ll give you a hint: what I always talk about. The Sex Industry and people who think they know what is best. They do that a lot, you know…people. They, oh, envision utopias and get into causes and picture a nice pretty clean world and think they can actually pull that shit off? Clue here, people. It ain’t happenin’. Not in this lifetime or any other.

But yeah, some people are on the verge of victory, you know, getting the things they’ve always wanted? Reaching their big time goals? Anti-sex industry people should be patting themselves on the back right now. I suspect they are, actually. Countries all over the world are looking into the Nordic Plans for prostitution. Even here in the good old US of A states where prostitution was not illegal (all two of them) are moving towards laws more like those in the rest of the country. Porn? The porn industry is in serious trouble. Obscenity laws, the AIM/Cal-OSHA wars, all kinds of shit. Look, anti-industry people? You are getting just what you wanted. A crack down on selling/buying sex. Porn companies folding or in serious financial straits. You’re winning!

But, she says, lighting that cigarette and smiling that grim smile, at what price? The people you worry about the most? Claim to care about the most? The poor women, the trafficked women, the drug addicted, un-educated women? The young women, the children? Well, Ozymandias, whom do you think all of this is going to hurt the worst? Need I remind anyone that we are in a world wide mass recession? Jobs are scarce. People who were formerly middle class are now fighting to keep their jobs, their homes, and their lights on? The exact sort of conditions- poverty and desperation- that lead or force the unwilling into the sex industry in the first place? The types of things that prompt a family to sell a child into sexual slavery? The types of things that make it easy for traffickers to trick women into forced prostitution after promising them better lives in far away lands? And it is not as if our world governments have swept in to pick up the slack here, dear readers. There are no government funded, state supported, fully functional programs for former forced sexual laborers. No medical care. No educational or job training. No day-care. No living quarters. No roof over the head, three squares a day promise of a better life. The closest thing we have is…prison. So where are these most unfortunate of people to go? Just back to what they were doing, in more dangerous conditions. If you think in your pretty new world there will not be forced, coerced sexual labor then you are a fool. Ruthless people bent on profit do not let things like nice sounding laws get in the way of their businesses. The willing and the unwilling will still be fucking for money no matter what the law says. It may not be on your corners anymore, but it will still be happening, and the worst of it will be happening to the most vulnerable people of all. Your vaunted models will not end supply or demand, it will just make things uglier and worse. And if you think it will actually cut down on trafficking? Ha. I will call you either a stupid or naïve fool. And I will be right. Selling sex is illegal here in most of the USA, but it still happens every day, and in every way, 24/7-365…even on Christmas.

As for porn, do you honestly think hamstringing the legal porn industry in California will stop porn from being made? Fact here, aside from in Ca, it is illegal to make porn anywhere else in the US. Guess what? It still gets made. Tons of it. Some of it is made with Ca standards in place: legal age, testing, contracts, release forms, payment, so on, so forth. Some of it is most certainly not. And why yes, so long as there is a demand for porn (which there has been, for a long, long time) it will get made. Would you prefer the porn that is made to be made by people who abide by the Ca standard, or not? Because sure enough, so long as someone is willing to spend money to watch people fuck, someone will profit from it. It will get made, and lawlessness and disorder in porn is not a good idea at all. Proof of age, testing, contracts, release forms, payment, or…. any asshole with a drunk, drugged out person and an I-Phone? You pick. Choice two is what you are actually asking for by calling for the proverbial head of the Ca industry on a pike. You think women in porn- you know, those helpless hapless ones- are abused now? Just you wait. Only a great many of them won’t be in porn anymore then. They will find other jobs, better or worse, and no one will have any idea if the people in porn are there by choice or not…because it will be illegally made and considering that, no reason for proof of age or consent. Yet it will still be watched. There will still be a demand, and a supply to fill it.

You think these laws, these victories, will put a single dent in trafficking, or sexual labor brought on by poverty, unemployment, lack of education, or force? These huge, global problems?

Well, to you and the rest of the morons in the room…those are things you cannot fix.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Vicky Vette vs. RapidShare: A Shot In The Dark, Or A Major Blow Against Porn Piracy??

Remember when I had posted here about Vicky Vette complaining about how file-sharing venues like RapidShare were basically stealing her content and passing it on for free...and that she was considering legal action to prevent such??

Well, last week, she cashed the check, so to speak. The story courtesy of XBiz.com:


Adult Star Vicky Vette Sues RapidShare For Stealing Content

LOS ANGELES —Adult star Vicky Vette has filed a lawsuit against RapidShare A.G. claiming the company repeatedly uploaded her content and provided it free to web surfers.

Vette said she is the first major adult star to file a lawsuit against RapidShare.The suit was filed in Los Angeles County.

According to Vette's attorney, Michael Kernan, the suit centers around Vette's right of publicity. Kernan said that under California law, any actor has the right to protect their name and likeness. RapidShare, Kernan said, is illegally using Vette's likeness and content to sell memberships to its sites.

"RapidShare is trying to redefine itself as a Google, when in fact it is more like Napster and making a profit out of selling pirated content. It's downloading copyright protected material," Kernan said.

[Quote from Vicky] "The adult industry has complained bitterly about torrent sites and file sharing sites like RapidShare destroying the business, but for some reason no one has stepped up to the plate and done anything about it. Instead of whining, I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and retained an attorney to sue them. I have lots of popular exclusive content like my 'Lavatory Occupied' series that is repeatedly available on RapidShare for download without my permission."

Vette said she decided to sue after repeatedly sending cease and desist letters that were ignored by RapidShare.

"RapidShare promised me they would "filter" their content, but I just found 'Lavatory Occupied'... once again... sitting on their servers and free to the world. I think it must be deliberate, or they just don't care.They seem to feel they are immune to action," Vette said.

"Anytime I mention this to other people in the business I am shocked that they shrug their shoulders and seem resigned to the stealing that is going on. Napster was forced to comply with the law after being sued. I am hoping to set an example. Just because my content is adult does not mean that it is not worthy of protection. It costs me money to make it, and it is valuable to me. Just a couple of months ago a comic book publishing consortium got an injunction for similar infringing behavior against RapidShare. I figured that it was a great time to strike," Vette said.

RapidShare's U.S. attorneys were not available for comment at press time.

In a related story, XBIZ reported today that Perfect 10, which also filed a suit against RapidShare won a motion to deny RapidShare from postponing a preliminary injunction hearing set for May 12 and moving the venue to Germany. The hearing will be heard in San Diego District Court as originally scheduled.

“RapidShare didn’t want a U.S. court to have the opportunity to hear the case," Perfect 10 owner Norm Zeda told XBIZ. "They wanted the case tried under German law."

Zada filed a preliminary injunction April 12 against RapidShare, saying the company is stealing, copying and selling his copyrighted material.

RapidShare's response in a memorandum stated that Perfect 10 has declined to provide RapidShare with the links to files it asserts are among hundreds of millions of user files on RapidShare’s site, which RapidShare would gladly remove if Perfect 10 shared this information.

According to Zada, RapidShare admits to selling the content, but not to copying it, saying the material ended up on its servers, which are located in Germany, through anonymous third parties.

RapidShare claimed it's a storage site where users can store and share files and view licensed content, including video games and movie trailers from Warner Brothers in Germany.

But Zeda argued, "They’re not a storage locker. RapidShare is the greatest infringing paysite of all time. They’re making $80 million a year that belongs to American studios and producers.”

Zada said he has lost $60 million fighting the good fight, adding the U.S. government doesn’t help the cause by not offering copyright protection.

Both Zeda and Vette said they will continue the fight.

Vette asked others in adult who think they are victims of RapidShare to email her and she will refer them to her attorney.

Now, the consensus opinion out there praises Vicky for being the first adult star to initiate such a legal action, but also gives her not much of a chance of success, and even includes a heavy risk of having to pay all of RapidShare's court costs if unsuccessful.  I'm figuring, though, that she's willing to take that risk for the basic principle of protecting her property and her interests, and standing up for performers.

It's not the first time that RapidShare has been targeted for enabling piracy; I posted earlier about the ruling that favored a group of booksellers and comic authors claiming that RS illegally violated their copyright rights by reproducing the former's content and reproducing it for free. And, as noted above, Perfect 10 has become well known for their legal challenges to companies who offer open access to file shareing, as their long-running battle against Google shows....though that one didn't quite turn out in their favor.

It should be noticed that Vette's lawsuit involves only material specifically pilfered from her own sites (the Lavatory Occupied series was an exclusive that was produced around 2006-2007 for her personal site VickyatHome.com), and not content that she produced for other companies such as Brazzers or Naughty America.

I'm guessing that the counter argument put out by RapidShare will be that they should not be held responsible or liable for the actions of their users, who upload the contents themselves for safe keeping and sharing to RS's servers; and that only the users who steal content directly from performers' sites and reproduce them as their own for free or resale should be the ones held liable. This was exactly the defense that Napster and many bit torrent sites used against legal actions against them...to varying success.

Also, it could be argued that given the ease of downloading material using instant downloader software and the fact that many uploaders and users of file-saving/file storage software get their material legally and legitimately through valid monthly memberships and simply use the storage for safe keeping rather than file sharing (not to deny in any way that more overt theft does exist), it would be well nigh impossible to prove that there is any malicious theft.  The fact that RapidShare does charge fees for storage based on length of time, and does tend to look away at the sight of covert copying of paid content, does tend to strength Vicky's case a bit.

Either way, this case is a potential game changer for both file-sharing and adult media production...and more than worth watching.  Whatever side you may be on, you gotta give Vicky Vette her just deserved credit for backing up with action her words and deeds.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy, Bans Strip Clubs

[Important update below -- scroll to bottom]

And to think that liberals and Leftists love to mock the Teabaggers for their outright looniness..we may not be able to laugh so long if this group of radfems get as much a hold of the Obama Presidency as they have apparently overtaken the ruling government of Iceland.

The story from the UK Guardian:


Iceland: the world's most feminist country


Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.


[excerpted from full article here]
It should be noted that the author of the Guardian article that practically gushes with praise for this most wonderful "feminist" action is Julie Bindel, a long time antiporn/antiprostitution activist and a favorite within APRF circles.

Of course, my guess is that Ms. Bindel probably would get a slightly different opinion of her favored government from the women who are now unemployed or threatened with not only the loss of income, but perhaps even jail time, thanks to the enlightened leadership of such "feminism".

Or, the women who now will face the prospect of even greater risk of sexual assault or harrassment in the streets due to the closing down of safe and formerly legal venues of adult entertainment.

Or....even those who will now hang their heads in shame that the term "feminism" has been now officially hijacked and smeared through the actions of women whose only incentive is to indict, convict, and even execute men for the evil thought crime of thinking about women as free and equal sexual beings....or simply having erections. (Would Ms. Bindel be so exercised about the supposedly boorish behavior of gay men towards each other??  Or, do they need to have gay bars and other potential places of hooking up closed down, too, just to satisfy her (and the Icelander government's) newly created fear of male erect penii???)

Also...I'd wonder how many of the votes for this strip club ban came from right-wing fundamentalist conservatives who share Ms. Bindel's concerns, yet from a more "religious" perspective of "immorality":rather than the cover of "protecting women" from the evil male gaze?? Of course, no feminist worth her title would EVER ally themselves with such right-wing people to pass legislation....no, ma'am, only those evil pro-porn rapist MEN would portray them as conservatives out to use the State to regulate sexual choices!!!

Unfortunately, in the bizarro world of "left" antipornradicalfeminism, which seems to be taking over whatever's left of "the Left" in Europe, everything old is new again. Rumors of MacDworkinism's death appear to be badly mistaken and unfounded.

And if we're not too careful and don't start fighting hard, we'll have to face this shit here within our own borders. Remember, Cass Sustein could very well be our next Supreme Court Justice....Glenn Beck's ravings notwithstanding.

Update by Anthony (4-1-10):  As noted in my latest comment, I have gone ahead and closed comments for this entry, for the purpose of not extending the drama any further.  I have gone ahead and crossposted this entry over to my SmackDog Chronicles blog. All who had participated in the debate here are more than welcome to move over there and continue the discussion; I will be in a better position to respond to critics there.

Here's the link:

Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy And Bans Strip Clubs (The Remixed Version) -- The SmackDog Chronicles

Feel free to go there and fire away.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

MacDworkin Redux

A piece of legislation that has largely flown under the radar of the free speech and pro-sex advocates passed through the Minnesota Senate this week. The legislation proposes a ban on MN government business travelers from staying in hotels that offer premium porn channels, at least those offering what the legislators are defining as "violent" pornography. Note that this has nothing to do with MN State workers purchasing porn viewing on the state's dime, which is presumably already prohibited, but represents a state-mandated boycott of lodging that does not meet the "clean hotels" designation. (There is an exception in the legislation for state business travelers who cannot find a "clean hotel" in the area they are traveling in, however, they are also required to provide written proof to that effect.)

Clearly out to win some kind of Orwell award, the bill's sponsor, Democratic State Senator Tarryl Clark stated, "This bill is not about policing personal choices. The bill is about taking another step in reducing sexual violence in our society."

Also, proof that the usual suspects from the Stop Porn Culture crowd have had an influence here, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault executive director Donna Dunn notes that the legislation is meant to target material that "show[s] degrading and body-punishing sex".

Further details here, here, here, and here. Text of the legislation here.

What stands out about this legislation is that it has not come from the usual suspects on the religious right (though the "clean hotel" list in the US is maintained by these groups) nor is it justified on "decency" grounds. Rather, the bill was sponsored by a Democrat, lobbied for by a coalition of feminist anti-sexual violence groups (specifically, the Mens' Action Network (who maintain a page on the subject here), the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and, notably, the Minnesota Department of Health Injury and Violence Prevention Unit), and specifically touted as prevention of sexual violence. More chillingly, a document by the MDH Injury and Violence Prevention Unit, "The Promise of Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence: A Five-Year Plan To Prevent Sexual Violence and Exploitation in Minnesota" specifically highlights porn and "sexual objectification" as a causal agent in sexual violence and recommends legislative and other state-sponsored strategies against it.

If this kind of thing coming out of the great state of Minnesota sounds familiar, one needs to go back some 25 years to the heyday of the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance, which was first passed by the Minneapolis City Council in 1983 (though vetoed by the mayor, who recognized the legislation would clearly lose on constitutional grounds). The language of the present legislation comes right out of the earlier Dworkin/MacKinnon legislation. While the authors claim that legislation does not target all sexually explicit material shown at hotels, it broadly defines the targeted material as follows:
"pornographic image or performance" means a sexually explicit image or performance that objectifies or exploits its subjects by eroticizing domination, degradation, or violence.

(Also, as is typical of the hypocrisy of such legislation, while it broadly defines a wide range of pornographic content as "violent" by definition, violent non-porn movies shown on hotel movie channels, such as Saw or Captivity, get a free pass.)

Unfortunately, there seems to be little sustained opposition to this legislation (other than from the hotel lobby), and the Minnesota ACLU website doesn't see fit to mention it. The legislation has a good chance of passing, though how it will stand up if challenged in court is less clear – the bill uses the same ideologically-loaded language struck down in Booksellers v. Hudnut. I urge readers in Minnesota to write their legislators and raise awareness of this issue.

Meanwhile, in Texas, a bill passed last year charging a $5 per head "pole tax" on strip-club patrons is scheduled to go before the Texas State Supreme Court this week. What is notable about this legislation is that it too was passed on grounds of "preventing sexual violence", mandating that the tax be used to fund anti-sexual violence groups. While this may seem non-problematic on the surface, it once again, mandates a direct link between the sex industry and violence against women, and proposes a sin tax as a partial solution.

Like the Minnesota legislation, the Texas bill was sponsored by a Democratic legislator, State Representative Ellen Cohen, and backed by a coalition of anti-sexual violence groups. It should also come as no surprise that Robert Jensen was one of the consultants on this piece of legislation and that a women's center at Jensen's institution, University of Texas, is one of the proposed recipients of the largess of this tax.

More here, here, and here.

While these pieces of anti-porn legislation are a great deal less far-reaching than many earlier anti-porn legislative efforts in the US, or current ones in some European and Commonwealth countries, such legislation is clearly meant to set a precedent. Laws specifically linking pornography to violence against women that might stand up to constitutional challenges may be used as justification for more far-reaching legislation in the future.

How To Smack Down A Troll (Antiporn Pseudofeminist Division)

Here's yet another example of how antiporn feminist lunacy gets around the Interwebz.

Avedon Carol is well known for both her unabashed progressive/liberal/Left viewpoints and her opposition to censorship, especially censorship of sexual media. As the head of the London based group Feminists Against Censorship, Avedon has been on the forefront of battles against both religious- and feminist-based attempts to censor sexual media for quite a long time...even during the days of Dworkin-MacKinnon and the Meese Commission. Therefore, like other infidel feminists, she gets the occasional cold brush treatment from the usual crowd of antiporn "feminists".

A recent example is taking place at her blog, The Sideshow, where in passing Avedon did a brief endorsement of a recent anthology titled The History of Pornography (edited by Patricia Davis, Simon Noble, and Rebecca J. White), which she described as an "non-idelogical" and "dry" piece. Nevertheless, she gave the anthology a begrudging approval:


But I couldn't find anything particularly wrong with it from a quick scan. Possibly a good primer for someone not familiar with the basics.
Such a view was not shared by a reader named "Mathilda", who decided to use the comment page to attempt to correct Avedon on her "error" in judgment.

Regarding: "The History of Pornography, I would not consider this to be a good primer for someone not familiar with the basics as the authors paint a rather rosy, inaccurate, and one-sided picture.

In the discussion of the movie: "Deep Throat", no mention is made of the fact that the actress Linda Lovelace performed this act under duress.  

She testified before the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in New York City, stating “When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time.”

Also, there is no reference to "Pornography for Women" and the many excellent female pornographers such as: Petra Joy, Erika lust, etc,  who cater exclusively to the authentic sexual fantasies of women (For example, many scenes that include cunnilingus, threesomes - one woman, two men etc.)

The important distinction between Features and Gonzo is not discussed.

Finally, child pornography, or the more apt term, sexual abuse of children, is completely ignored.

According to the Internet Watch Foundation, the recent trend has been for more brutal images and severe torture of children whose ages are getting lower and lower.

A more appropriate title for this paper would have been: "The History of Pornography for Heterosexual Men".  [posted by "matilda" on 3/13/10 @ 10:34 PM London time]
You get the picture...do you??

Avedon attempted a quick response:

The place of Deep Throat in the history of pornography has nothing to do with how Traynor treated Linda - although her story would fit neatly into a detailed history of marital abuse in the 20th century.  Don't confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself - it's like pretending that because many people who work in the food industry are treated badly, food itself is evil.

Internet Watch Foundation is an organization formed by ISPs to try to finesse the government's power to shut them down (I was there - in fact, I was the person who made the mistake of explaining to them that they had no legal recourse other than to fight to change the law or cave in).  It depends on keeping fears about internet content stoked for its authority (and the income of its paid employees).  It does not have a record of being a reliable source for information about pornography, on or off the internet.

Commercial child pornography has played very little role in pornography itself, since it has never been a significant draw in the industry.  Also not mentioned in the article is the outrageous (and fully-documented) list of outright lies used to promote the idea of the vast influence of child pornography and to bring in horrific laws that have destroyed many lives over a threat that does not exist - and in fact, the laws themselves have endangered and harmed more children than they could conceivably protect.

As noted by the authors, there simply wasn't room for exploring the kind of detail you think was important, anymore than there was time for exploring the kind of detail I think is important - such as the role attempts to suppress porn play in creating sexual violence. [posted by Avedon on 3/14/10 @ 4:49 AM]
 Good enough....but upon reading this, I decided that the record should be cleared regarding the charges involving Linda Lovelace, especially considering Sheldon Ranz's excellent work regarding her history.  Thusly, I entered the debate head first:

And, consideing the charge implied that Linda Lovelace was forced to perform those acts she performed for Deep Throat: In her latter years just prior to her death, Lovelace essentially repudiated many of the charges she made concerning coercion involving making porn. She has also insisted that any abuse she suffered at the hands of Scott Traynor was entirely his alone, and that no other porn performer ever abused or coerced her. She even went on to accuse her antiporn suitors who were encouraging her to make those claims at that time of double-crossing her. [posted by me on 3/14/10 @ 10:16 AM]
Rather than attempt to rebut the facts, Mathilda decided to resort to the last gasp of trolls: denial and divergence of attention:

It was her husband Scott Traynor who held a gun to her head during the filming of Deep Throat. [posted by Matilda on 3/14/10 @ 10:31 AM]
Which proves....what??? He held a gun to her head everywhere, and undoubtably abused her..but what does that have anything to disprove Lovelace's own words??

Then, Matilda decided to aim her guns of scorn at Avedon directly, invoking all the usual GenderBorg saws and insults that are lobbed regularly at infidel women who don't march in perfect goosestep with their ideology:

Don't confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself - How cruel! Using your logic, we should not concern ourselves with the millions of innocent children, young girls, and women that are forced into the sex trade by means of violence as it's all about delivering a product to men. You're definitely not a humanitarian, are you Avedon.

As for the Internet Watch Foundation, although it does have a history of overstepping its boundaries, checks and balances are in place. The IWF is currently the only watchdog in the UK for suspect online content. While its website cites several areas of interest, almost the whole of the IWF site is concerned with suspected child pornography. This organization has rescued many children from abuse. Surely you're not against that. BTW, can you provide a link for the outrageous and fully-documented list of outright lies used to promote the idea of the vast influence of child pornography. Also, please specify which laws have destroyed many lives and have endangered and harmed more children that they could conceivably protect.

That said, what's your view on child pornography? How extensive is it? Should we just ignore it or must something be done about it?

As for your last paragraph, it appears that pornography for women is such an unimportant detail. It's all about men with you, isn't it? If I may borrow Lambert's quote, you're a feminist like Zola's Nana was an actress.  [posted by Matilda on 3/14/10 @ 12:22 PM]

Note the attempt by Matilda to qualify her basic fundamentalist antiporn agenda with fawning support for "pornography for women", basically a house of straw that is used to mask her agenda of pillorying actual women in porn, and anyone who would defend them.

The debate essentially degenerates from there; I will simply repost here the exchange that resulted.

[From NomadUK]
Using your logic, we should not concern ourselves with the millions of innocent children, young girls, and women that are forced into the sex trade by means of violence as it's all about delivering a product to men.

If you read Avedon's response in that manner, then you're simply being deliberately obtuse and have little of value to say. But that's been fairly clear from your past posts, so, no surprise, really.

2 days ago, 10:46:09 AM
 
[From Matilda]
To suggest that one should not confuse the conditions under which a worker is employed with the product itself is like anathema to me if one wishes to call oneself a progressive. It immediately brings forth images of all kinds of abuse such as sex slavery, child labor, and sweatshops to name but a few. Avedon could have worded it differently to get her point across more effectively and humanely.  For example, if she had said: "Although I understand and share your concern about the abuse suffered by Linda Lovelace while making the movie Deep Throat, her story is separate from "The History of Modern Pornography", then at least, she would have given the impression that she cared about women. As it stands now, Avedon Carol comes across to me as someone who is hostile to authentic female sexuality and who does not give a flying fig about achieving sexual equality and freedom for women. That's not my idea of a feminist. Show me you care about women, Avedon.
2 days ago, 12:18:35 PM
 
[From Avedon]
No.  You come across as someone who wants to make up shit to accuse me of because I don't happen to share your penchant for blaming the wrong things for problems in society.  Your little mini-screeds are littered with false assumptions - not just about me, but about the subjects you claim to care about. 

When you care enough to do as much research on these subjects as I have, you will stop being such a loose cannon and, one hopes, have something to contribute to the debate.  Until then, you are just wasting our time.
2 days ago, 12:34:50 PM
 
[From Matilda]
Again, you provide no links for any of your claims.

In case you don't know, your blog is like an open book, no false assumptions on my part. Obviously you are lacking in knowledge about pornography for women. But not to worry. I'm an expert on that topic. Let me link you to some sites that will enlighten you. Porn movies for women - this will give you an idea what authentic female sexuality is about. My favorite female erotic cinematographer is Petra Joy. She calls her movies "Artcore", rather than "Hardcore". And rightly so. The hot sex scenes in her movies are artistically presented. From reading your blog, I can tell that you appreciate art. Petra Joy's movies will therefore definitely appeal to you if you enjoy watching authentic female desires and fantasies. 

If you wish to know more about what women don't like about mainstream porn, there is a good discussion in the comments to this article.
2 days ago, 2:32:20 PM
[from Matilda]
If you really wish to understand what I mean by sexual freedom for women, and women's right to enjoy their sexuality without shame, read the following.

The Night of the Senses" is an annual event where "Erotic Oscars" are handed out to creative talent. It celebrates diversity. The venue offers many different play rooms where people can live out their sexual fantasies. When Petra Joy attended one year she decided to be a voyeur. She narrates one of her most memorable experiences.
"Another room, another world. I hear a woman's loud moans. They draw me in. Her moans are not high but she groans with pleasure almost like an animal. When I step into the room I see men, lots of men surrounding a kind of metal bed. All I see of the woman is her raised hips and pussy. She is being fingered slowly and deeply by just one guy and watched by all the others. The guy's eyes meet mine. He appreciates and enjoys being watched. This is so different from the group wank scenario of a "Bukkake" party. The guys are not here to degrade the woman. The guys watch a woman being pleasured. And they know they are lucky to witness this intimate moment - a glimpse into the world of infinite female sexual power. A woman receiving total pleasure without shame. She is not serving but being served. Pleasured by one man and adored by the others. To me it felt like a temple of worship to female lust. Deep wet and roaring. And a shiver goes down my spine". Source
2 days ago, 2:40:04 PM
 

So, if we are to believe Matilda, she isn't really censoring porn, just attacking "mainstream" porn as merely a tool of men possessing and raping women, while offering an alternative "porn for women" that will essentially liberate women and break the cycle of male violence while affirming "authentic" female pleasure. Riiiiiiight...and the ex-gay fundamentalist preachers just love gays, too.

Here's how I responded to Matilda's latest nonsense:

Ahhhh.....first of all, Matilda, I have read about countless women who have performed bukkake.  It may not be for everyone, but it's not the universal "shamefest" that you take it to be...try actually asking more than a few women who have done it. It's only sperm, not battery acid.

Secondly...you talk all this smack about "female sexual power", but would you ever support the many females who are in mainstream porn who have openly testified that they have been empowered positively by their participation in it?? Would you grant the same mantle of authority to the likes of Nina Hartley, Candida Royalle, Madison Young, Sasha Grey, Dana DeArmond, Jane Hamilton, Lisa Ann...and I can name so many others?? Or, is only "female sexual power" simply restricted to those who follow your personal ideology? With all due respect to Petra Joy, she isn't the only person who can speak for herself.

And thirdly, comparing "mainstream porn" which is still basically a legal product consumed by consenting adults, with child porn, which is, last time I checked, still illegal, says far more about your biases and cracked opinions, Matilda, than it ever does about Avedon.  Besides, Avedon doesn't defend porn uncritically; she just defends the right of free adult consensual sexual expression.

Oh...and just quoting from Lovelace's Meese Commission testimony that "Chuck Traynor had a gun at her face while making Deep Throat" is simply misleading. In both of her biographies, Deep Throat and Out Of Bondage, Lovelace makes it definitely clear that NONE of the actors and performers in that movie coerced or harmed her during the taping of that movie, and she insisted that not only was it her decision to make the movie, but that the sex scenes were welcomed by her as a distraction from the abuse that she was getting from Traynor at the time. And, as I commented in my OC, in her later years, she even repudiated that testimony, saying that she was just saying that to please her fair-weather benefactors in the antiporn movement.

I'll go along with Avedon on this one. Bring facts, not anecdotes.  [posted by me on 3/15/10 @ 1:15 AM]

What Matilda did bring in response is simply breathtaking. I'll just let you be the judge.

You [moi] said: Would you ever support the many females who are in mainstream porn who have openly testified that they have been empowered positively by their participation in it?? Hahahahaha
Oh, you guys just love to delude yourself, don't you. Show me an article that talks about men claiming that cunnilingus empowers them and we'll carry on with this discussion. I'll tell you what empowers women - sexual equality, socialize women from the day they are born that they should cherish their sexuality and enjoy it because it is good, healthy and natural. Let's do away with the madonna/whore syndrome, shall we and then talk about empowerment.

BTW, here's a good article that mentions Sasha Grey - the author who states that, she is the porno industry's public relations wet dream come true, interviewed her while he was watching one of her porn movies. He's asking her questions while she's moaning in the movie saying:
I want to be your sex slave, I want you to hurt me, I want you to make me cry. I’ll do anything, anything at all, whatever you want, I’m such a fucking whore, I need to train, I need to be broken, I want you to fucking hurt me.” .." Patriarchy has trained women well to say what men want to hear, acting like the good little captives they are.

Mainstream porn is all about women pleasing men. I've been researching this topic for about a year and a half and I honestly don't know which is worse - the images or the text. By far the worst effect of porn is that it has turned the men who watch it into sellfish uncaring lovers. As a result, many men and women have lost the ability to live with each other in peace. In the next post I've provided some links that discusses this issue in greater detail.

As for Linda Lovelace, it was in her last two biographies that she claimed she was abused during the filming of Deep Throat.  However, believe whatever you wish. All I can say is that the acts she performed in that movie were not normal.

Finally, I've been reading Avedon's blog for quite some time now. She must be a nice person and is obviously very knowledgeable about many topics. However, as far as human sexuality is concerned, Avedon Carol only says what men want to hear. I don't fault her for it because many very intelligent women and other feminists do the same. The need to please men is bred into women's bones. It requires herculean strength to break free from this mould and to tell it like it is.

Anyway, peace be with you. 

[Yesterday, 6:17:32 PM]
Forget about the fact that my point wasn't about men and cunninglingus, but women liking bukkake. Let's go straight to the attempted smackdown of Sasha Grey, who can certainly and has often defended herself against similar slurs and insults.

The actual article Matilda referenced (the original link is broken) goes to an interview that Ms. Grey did for Adbusters.com reporter Douglas Haddow that was included in a rambling essay on how porn affected Maddow's generation. The words used by Matilda was actually a partial script of an anal scene Sasha did in a movie titled Sasha Grey Anal 1  That's right, Clones: a script of a scene. No reflection on Grey's normal sexual habits, or even her usual alt.porn roles; just one particular scene acted out. Just like the actors like Petra Joy whom act out similar scenes in their supposedly "woman-positive" porn movies.

Only antiporn ideology would suggest that Sasha Grey's performances reflect anything upon the users or even the performers, any more than people who watch "feminist porn" automatically become progressive feminists, or even antiporn feminists.

And then there is the whiff of arrogance: someone with a year of "research" experience empowers herself to speak for, and deny self-will and autonomy to, women performers who have been in the business for years and years. Not to mention, an anticensorship activist who has been on the front lines for well over 20 - 30 years. All because.....they want to please men.

Finally.....the acts that Linda Lovelace performed were "not normal"?!?!?!?  Really??  So, fellatio isn't "normally" acted out by women on men?? I guess that muff-diving, penile/vaginal sex, facials, external pop shots, and sex with anyone other than your significant other is also considered not "normal", then, Matilda?? Never mind that all those acts are performed not just in porn, but in REAL LIVE by REAL LIVE people every single day???

But....we are supposed to believe that all of the acts performed in her favored "porn for women" ARE real and reflect the desires of REAL women??  As if existing female performers in porn right now aren't capable of experiencing "real" sex in their own private lives??

Yeah....Matilda's different from a right-wing fundie imposing their narrow attitudes on others. She may claim the title of "feminism"...the way Sarah Palin does.

Monday, March 8, 2010

The Latest from the "Liberal" Media

The latest round of porn-bashing from the ostensibly liberal media comes in the form of a Washington Post editorial by Pornified author Pamela Paul. Apparently triggered by the news University of Montreal study that turned up no link between porn consumption and pathological behavior, Paul comes back to the porn wars after several year ready for a fight.

Paul wants us to know that porn is dangerous addictive stuff that is damaging society. Her evidence – the anecdotal reports of the self-described porn addicts she interviewed for Pornified (selection bias, anyone?) and, that favorite cudgel of the anti-porn movement, the studies of Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant. She then drops one of her favorite shocking assertions: when Zillmann and Bryant took their findings to an ethics committee, it was found that they had clearly demonstrated that exposure to porn was so harmful, that all further direct laboratory studies using exposure to porn were forbidden from that point forward.

This latter point is taken up as the basis for a column by the rather clueless Tracy Clark-Flory, a writer for Salon's feminist column Broadsheet. Clark-Flory admits that Paul "seem(s) to have an agenda of (her) own" and talks about her "ambiguity" about porn, but nonetheless, seems to be perfectly fine with passing along the claims by Paul, and Zillmann and Bryant without comment.

Now where to begin with all this? First, a quick note on the University of Montreal study that triggered the article. I've been aware of this study for several months, and yes, I agree with the criticisms of it – only 20 subjects, same age group from one college campus, no control group; that's not a good study, which is why I don't quote it. (I do want to note, however, that blogs like Jezebel that made much to-do about the flaws of that study were very quick to laud Melissa Farley's latest study on the evils that johns do, with seemingly no concern about its methodology or research ethics – funny thing that.) The most I can say about it is that it squares with the established body of research that has so far failed to find any overarching negative effect of porn exposure on psychologically normal men.

Now, as for Pamela Paul, she makes a big to-do about her interviews with self-described porn addicts, but a purely anecdotal study of a group that is selected for having a problematic relationship with porn doesn't tell you anything about the role of porn in the lives of all men, or even most men. But if we're going to bring out anecdotal books, why not give equal weight to David Loftus' Watching Sex? Which found men reporting that porn plays a much less problematic (and sometimes even positive) role in their lives, in stark contrast to the claims made by anti-porn activists (who often don't even talk to, much less study, male porn consumers). (Audio of interview with Loftus here.) However, until the claims made in both Pornified and Watching Sex are the subject of a controlled, methodological study, any such claims must be only seen as provisional.

The meat of this critique, and something I've been meaning to write about for some time, concerns the pornography research of Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant, who's studies on the behavioral effects of pornography are a mainstay of anti-porn literature. What seems to have disappeared down the memory hole, however, is that Zillmann and Bryant were deeply biased toward what can only be described as a deeply conservative view of gender relationships (the "virtue" of women, etc) and engineered this bias into the questionnaire they used to evaluate the "sexual callousness" their subjects supposedly picked up from exposure to pornography. Their assumptions about what constitutes “sexual callousness” include: the belief that having multiple partners is more natural than life-long monogamy, placing a low value on the institution of marriage, seeing nothing wrong with non-marital sexuality, belief that repressing sexual desire is unhealthy, and having less desire to have children. In other words, being sex-positive makes you “sexually callous”!

Zillmann and Bryant had been called out by a number of writers during the 1980s and early 1990s for the political biases and its negative influence on their research. Notably, see the debate between Ferrel Christensen and Jennings & Bryant in the pages of Journal of Communication (link and link). The responses by Zillmann and Bryant really give their game away as to where they are coming from in terms of sexual politics, and their contempt for Christensen's sex-positivity is palpable. Note also the response by Daniel Linz and Edward Donnerstein (link), who do not seem to have a dog in the porn wars of the time, but nonetheless clearly point out Zillmann & Bryant's political engagement with the anti-pornography side and, most damningly, the fact that they simply ignore research that contradicted their own when discussing their findings. Additionally, Alison King's 1993 essay "Mystery and Imagination: the Case of Pornography Effects Studies" (partial link here), is an excellent critique of 1980s porn effects research, with a particular focus on the work of Zillmann and Bryant.

Getting back to Pamela Paul, its not surprising that she's such a partisan for Zillmann and Bryant, considering she seems to be working from a similar set of sexual politics. While I don’t know her exact political leanings, based on what I’ve read of “Pornified” and interviews I’ve listened to, she seems to show a strong neo-conservative streak, an impression that's only strengthened by the fact that the overwhelming concern of her writing centers on the strength of marriage and family, and potential threats to that institution. Though she’s not overtly part of the religious right or making religious arguments (albeit, she does have good things to say about religious right anti-porn activism), she does work from a host of traditionalist assumptions about men and women. That women ultimately want to be in a faithful, emotionally supportive, monogamous relationship with a man, and that men basically need to be hammered into the role of faithful partner, something undermined by porn. Call it "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" feminism, if you will.

This brings me to one Pamela Paul's tallest assertions, apparently based on an interview with Jennings Bryant, in which he claims that the results of his study showed such clear and overwhelmingly negative effects that they were blocked by an ethics board from conducing further research where subjects were directly exposed to pornography. Paul implies that this has been the case ever since Zillmann & Bryant's original study. A simple search of the academic literature would dismiss this whopper of a claim (one I've seen a number of antis repeat over the last several years, BTW), and one really has to wonder about Paul's qualifications as a journalist for not even checking this story.

In fact, quite a bit of porn research was done throughout the 1980s, notably by the Linz and Donnerstein, the above-mentioned colleagues of Zillmann and Bryant, as well as Neil Malamuth. The results of all of this research was highly equivocal; Neil Malamuth (a wildly misunderstood researcher who is a strong believer in the idea that pornography has *some* behavioral effect) has conducted several meta-analyses of this research, and has led him to note negative behavioral effects only in the most violent subset of men and mainly from violent pornography (link), and this in combination with a certain set of pre-disposing psychological cofactors (what he terms "moderators") that he is currently engaged in studying. Most notably, Malamuth was not able to find any evidence that pornography promoted sexually aggressive behavior in psychologically normal men, something anti-porn crusaders like Robert Jensen and Gail Dines have been forced to admit time and again.

And this is not to mention the fact that pornography is routinely used in other areas of psychological research, notably studies of sexual attraction; for example, the controversial research on gender and sexual attraction by Meredith Chivers and Michael Bailey (link).

The story by Bryant, repeated by Pamela Paul, that research using pornography ceased following Zillmann & Bryant's early study is spun out of whole cloth, and is simply a dodgy cover for the fact that their alarming results were not, in fact, generally replicated. That a crusader like Jennings Bryant or Pamela Paul would float such a tale is par for the course. However, that somebody like a Salon columnist – Salon presumably being a journalistic source – would pass something like this along without some remedial fact-checking is truly shameful.